For argument's sake, are there many/any real-life examples of heroic civilians who happened to be packing at the time preventing or mitigating a massacre like this? I'm not necessarily saying it's never happened, I'm just unaware of any examples.

I don't know of any examples, but the thinking behind concealed carry is that events like this are much less likely to happen if the potential shooter has to wonder if his own life is in danger by someone(s) intervening. The counterargument would probably be that a person doing something like this isn't exactly concerned for his own safety so he couldn't care less whether or not anyone else was packing. It's up to you which side of the argument you choose to subscribe to.

This sounds like the argument for the death penalty all over again.... by the way, Texas leads the WORLD in executions... yet our gun violence has continued to grow. This argument that the threat of death will deter violent criminals is simply false.

Logged

I've been coming to where I am from the get goFind that I can groove with the beat when I let goSo put your worries on holdGet up and groove with the rhythm in your soul

The idea that people around me in a movie theater might be carrying a weapon doesn't make me feel even the slightest bit safer, regardless of whether they're trained and licensed, and regardless of how responsible and competent they may consider themselves.

The idea behind concealed carry is that other people don't know you're carrying, therefore the fact that you are carrying should/would have no impact on how safe they themselves are feeling. I carry for my own peace of mind, not someone else's. Although, if you did know me and found my competency in the area to be a comfort to you, I'd thank you for the vote of confidence.

For argument's sake, are there many/any real-life examples of heroic civilians who happened to be packing at the time preventing or mitigating a massacre like this? I'm not necessarily saying it's never happened, I'm just unaware of any examples.

There have been lots of studies that look at the relationship between gun laws and crime, and also the incidence of defense-related uses of firearms versus gun homicides. I'm not here to proselytize, so people can easily look those up if they want.

For argument's sake, are there many/any real-life examples of heroic civilians who happened to be packing at the time preventing or mitigating a massacre like this? I'm not necessarily saying it's never happened, I'm just unaware of any examples.

I don't know of any examples, but the thinking behind concealed carry is that events like this are much less likely to happen if the potential shooter has to wonder if his own life is in danger by someone(s) intervening. The counterargument would probably be that a person doing something like this isn't exactly concerned for his own safety so he couldn't care less whether or not anyone else was packing. It's up to you which side of the argument you choose to subscribe to.

This sounds like the argument for the death penalty all over again.... by the way, Texas leads the WORLD in executions... yet our gun violence has continued to grow. This argument that the threat of death will deter violent criminals is simply false.

I think the better argument to make is not about deterrence but self-defense. There are crazy people out there who are going to do what they're going to do. Me simply being one more person licensed to carry concealed isn't going to stop that. It's more about being in a position to defend myself or others should the unthinkable happen. But still... we've had a rash of break-ins near where I live recently. Let's say someone busts into my house one night looking to grab an Xbox. Let's say I fear for my and my wife's safety and shoot the intruder. If that helps get the word out to these punks that it's not worth your life to go around breaking into houses, great.

I didn't take RJ's point had anything to do with outlawing guns - simply that he chooses not to own a gun because world peace starts at home. Don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's how I feel, so there it is.

I thought that's what "people should not carry guns" meant, but on closer inspection I see your reading may be much closer to his intent. Apologies if I misinterpreted.

For argument's sake, are there many/any real-life examples of heroic civilians who happened to be packing at the time preventing or mitigating a massacre like this? I'm not necessarily saying it's never happened, I'm just unaware of any examples.

I don't know of any examples, but the thinking behind concealed carry is that events like this are much less likely to happen if the potential shooter has to wonder if his own life is in danger by someone(s) intervening. The counterargument would probably be that a person doing something like this isn't exactly concerned for his own safety so he couldn't care less whether or not anyone else was packing. It's up to you which side of the argument you choose to subscribe to.

This sounds like the argument for the death penalty all over again.... by the way, Texas leads the WORLD in executions... yet our gun violence has continued to grow. This argument that the threat of death will deter violent criminals is simply false.

I think the better argument to make is not about deterrence but self-defense. There are crazy people out there who are going to do what they're going to do. Me simply being one more person licensed to carry concealed isn't going to stop that. It's more about being in a position to defend myself or others should the unthinkable happen. But still... we've had a rash of break-ins near where I live recently. Let's say someone busts into my house one night looking to grab an Xbox. Let's say I fear for my and my wife's safety and shoot the intruder. If that helps get the word out to these punks that it's not worth your life to go around breaking into houses, great.

I'd imagine our friend VDB, for example, has never fired his gun at another person. Does the fact that he simply owns a gun make the world more violent? I don't think so.

Thank you, Jimbo, I'd like to think the same. And I knew I could count on the libertarian to have my side on this one.

Defending your own home and bringing a concealed weapon to a movie theater are two different things, imo. The likelihood that you will need your gun in a movie theater is so infinitesimally small that I firmly believe you are more likely to have an accidental problem by carrying it than you are to save a life with it. Maybe it's a wash, but I wouldn't give the advantage to the defensive gun owner. Even the most well-trained and careful gun-owners have accidents. Statistically, I'd bet those accidents are at least as likely as being in a theater when some crazy a-hole bursts in with a gun.

You are far more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of a criminal with a gun. Carrying a concealed weapon in your car will not save you from that car crash death. I drive every day. I choose to live my life without any guns in my possession because I think having a gun in my home has more potential for harm than good.

Plus, I believe world peace starts at home.

"The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

Logged

I've been coming to where I am from the get goFind that I can groove with the beat when I let goSo put your worries on holdGet up and groove with the rhythm in your soul

For argument's sake, are there many/any real-life examples of heroic civilians who happened to be packing at the time preventing or mitigating a massacre like this? I'm not necessarily saying it's never happened, I'm just unaware of any examples.

I don't know of any examples, but the thinking behind concealed carry is that events like this are much less likely to happen if the potential shooter has to wonder if his own life is in danger by someone(s) intervening. The counterargument would probably be that a person doing something like this isn't exactly concerned for his own safety so he couldn't care less whether or not anyone else was packing. It's up to you which side of the argument you choose to subscribe to.

This sounds like the argument for the death penalty all over again.... by the way, Texas leads the WORLD in executions... yet our gun violence has continued to grow. This argument that the threat of death will deter violent criminals is simply false.

I think the better argument to make is not about deterrence but self-defense. There are crazy people out there who are going to do what they're going to do. Me simply being one more person licensed to carry concealed isn't going to stop that. It's more about being in a position to defend myself or others should the unthinkable happen. But still... we've had a rash of break-ins near where I live recently. Let's say someone busts into my house one night looking to grab an Xbox. Let's say I fear for my and my wife's safety and shoot the intruder. If that helps get the word out to these punks that it's not worth your life to go around breaking into houses, great.

I'd imagine our friend VDB, for example, has never fired his gun at another person. Does the fact that he simply owns a gun make the world more violent? I don't think so.

Thank you, Jimbo, I'd like to think the same. And I knew I could count on the libertarian to have my side on this one.

Defending your own home and bringing a concealed weapon to a movie theater are two different things, imo. The likelihood that you will need your gun in a movie theater is so infinitesimally small that I firmly believe you are more likely to have an accidental problem by carrying it than you are to save a life with it. Maybe it's a wash, but I wouldn't give the advantage to the defensive gun owner. Even the most well-trained and careful gun-owners have accidents. Statistically, I'd bet those accidents are at least as likely as being in a theater when some crazy a-hole bursts in with a gun.

You are far more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of a criminal with a gun. Carrying a concealed weapon in your car will not save you from that car crash death. I drive every day. I choose to live my life without any guns in my possession because I think having a gun in my home has more potential for harm than good.

Plus, I believe world peace starts at home.

"The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind."

If you go the movies once a month, and this sort of incident happened lets say once a year, the chances of you being in that theater when it happened would be 1 in 72.23 million. If I owned a gun (which I don't and never will) I'd probably take my chances and leave the gun at home, but that's just me.

ETA: Actually, that calculation was based on if you went once a year, if you go once a month, so 12 movies a year, your chances would be approx one in 6 million. Doesn't change much though.

If you have a gun at home, it will more likely be used on someone in your family than a criminal.

I find it also interesting that Europe has much stricter gun laws than we do, and a lot less gun violence.

Anyway, I agree with the comment that for practical reasons, guns will never be outlawed here. I can live with that. I can live with VDB as a responsible, licensed (presumably knowledgable) person having a gun. I will never own one.

I have a hard time with those who are against banning assault rifles, armor piercing bullets, "military" type weapons (like the large clip used in AZ last year), and allowing people to buy weapons at gun shows without background checks - all based on the 2nd amendment. We clearly need some common sense regulation, something that the NRA doesn't get in their zealous ideology. They passed a law in FLA making it illegal for a pediatrician to ASK a parent if there were guns in the house (apparently gun ownership > free speech to them). Fortunately, it got overturned by the court.

would any of that changed what happened last night? doubt it.

Logged

"toss away stuff you don't need in the endbut keep what's important, and know who's your friend""It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

Defending your own home and bringing a concealed weapon to a movie theater are two different things, imo.

In your home, you're not defending the walls and the floorboards. You're defending the human beings therein. I believe that an individual has a right to self-defense whether in his own home or outside it. And I believe that a firearm is an acceptable instrument for that end.

The likelihood that you will need your gun in a movie theater is so infinitesimally small that I firmly believe you are more likely to have an accidental problem by carrying it than you are to save a life with it. Maybe it's a wash, but I wouldn't give the advantage to the defensive gun owner.

I disagree. I believe they are both infinitesimally small, except I have control over one and not the other. I'll put my faith in myself and not the crazy, unpredictable, violent people out there.

You are far more likely to die in a car crash than at the hands of a criminal with a gun. Carrying a concealed weapon in your car will not save you from that car crash death. I drive every day.

You're right, and sometimes other drivers scare the shit out of me. That's why I'm always careful and attentive when I drive. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything -- there is risk all around us, so you do what you can to mitigate those risks, best you can.

I refuse to allow the acts of a demented few shake my conviction that people should not carry guns. World Peace has to begin at home.

People aren't allowed to buy drugs (well, some drugs anyway) either; are they any less available for the people who want them?

I agree with you that the relatively infrequent acts of the deranged shouldn't influence people's behavior. But I also don't believe that if you limit the rights of responsible gun owners (which, as your statement implies, make up the overwhelming majority of cases) we would be inherently safer. If people feel they need to protect themselves from these rare and senseless acts by owning a gun, I personally don't see why they should not be able to do that.

(full disclosure: I do not own a gun and have no desire to, but when I began having a family, I at least understood why some people would want to. YMMV)

ETA: forgot to mention, I don't see how gun ownership is a threat to world peace. I'd imagine our friend VDB, for example, has never fired his gun at another person. Does the fact that he simply owns a gun make the world more violent? I don't think so.

I didn't take RJ's point had anything to do with outlawing guns - simply that he chooses not to own a gun because world peace starts at home. Don't want to put words in his mouth, but that's how I feel, so there it is.

I first shot a .22 rifle at age 7. I believe children need to be taught to respect guns and how to use them safely. I don't believe we can outlaw guns at this point. It's far too late for that. I do believe we need to regulate them and do our best to eliminate automatic assault rifles and the like, but we cannot outlaw guns altogether at this point. It will never work.

But, I, like RJ, do not own a gun because I, like RJ, believe world peace starts at home.

As a child I was not allowed to own any toy guns... even a hot-pink water pistol would have been off limits in my house. But, again, I learned to shoot a real gun at age 7. I learned that guns are not toys. If I ever have kids, I will teach the same lessons.

Right.

Outside of hunting (which I do not have a problem with although I don't do it myself) the only reason to carry a gun is to shoot a person.

If no one carried a gun, then no one would be shot.

Is that an idealist notion? Yes.

Is it realistic? Not today. But wouldn't you like to see that world?

Of course you would.

However, we don't get to a point where no one feels they need a gun if more people decide to carry guns.

The likelihood that you will need your gun in a movie theater is so infinitesimally small that I firmly believe you are more likely to have an accidental problem by carrying it than you are to save a life with it. Maybe it's a wash, but I wouldn't give the advantage to the defensive gun owner.

I disagree. I believe they are both infinitesimally small, except I have control over one and not the other. I'll put my faith in myself and not the crazy, unpredictable, violent people out there.

I guess it's all relative. You do realize though that carrying a gun into a movie theater makes you, in some folks eyes, "the crazy, unpredictable, and violent people out there", right?

If nutjobs had free and easy access to mental health care from an early age, they probably would be less likely to arrive at the kick-a-door-down-and-shoot-up-a-movie-theater stage.

In an ideal world, this would be the case. However, I think a lot of people that we would assume need mental health care of any sort don't see themselves as heaving a mental health issue and wouldn't pursue the care they need.

I find it also interesting that Europe has much stricter gun laws than we do, and a lot less gun violence.

It's an interesting comparison. There are far and away more guns per capita in the U.S. than any other country. Europe has fewer guns, which I believe is a part of European nations also having lower firearms-related death rates. (By the way, the U.S. does not top that last list.) Just eyeballing the two lists, some European countries' gun-death rates are lower than the U.S.'s roughly to the same degree as their ownership rates are lower. Others (like France) don't see movement proportionately -- France has roughly 30% the guns per capita as us, but 60% the gun deaths per capita as us. So it's a mixed bag.

However, we don't get to a point where no one feels they need a gun if more people decide to carry guns.

I'm doing my part.

Are you?

I have to point out that, the people who are going to be willing to lay down their guns in the name of world peace are the ones we don't need to be most concerned about. It's the bad guys, who are not going to be so willing. And, as you point out, that ship has sailed and now they have them. So I'd rather crazy people and not-crazy people have guns as opposed to just crazy people.